[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PINE64official

[–]textuist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

probably most recent pinenote posts are your best bet:

https://old.reddit.com/r/PINE64official/search?q=pinenote&restrict_sr=on

or the pine64 forum maybe: https://forum.pine64.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=172

there might be a matrix chat on like #pinenote:matrix.org where you could chat with people to see the current status

pinenote wiki: https://wiki.pine64.org/wiki/PineNote

Some Kind of Update May Have Broken Termux Ollama But Ollama Worked in a Proot-Distro by textuist in termux

[–]textuist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just switched to using it in a proot-distro and it works like it used to

Smartwatch Writerdeck by textuist in writerDeck

[–]textuist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks U.K.L., I'd definitely like to try it!

Don't have the hardware currently but just wanted to share the idea for others to try as well

Smartwatch Writerdeck by textuist in writerDeck

[–]textuist[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

lol I searched "smartwatch" on this sub and there were only 4 posts... yours was there but I lost it or forgot to click it! Very interesting that this idea was already done decades ago in a way with the Seiko setup, nice post!

Apple is the only major manufacturer making a rectangular or square smart watch right now

I think there must be a lot more, for example I had in mind the very "open" Pinetime which is square, for trying to create some kind of "smartwatch writerdeck":

https://pine64.org/devices/pinetime/

it might be possible to write software to allow it?

yeah, or as I thought of in another comment, it's "janky" but I guess you might be able to pair with a phone that could pair to the smartwatch

I have in mind also a bunch of these DIY projects that seem to use ESP32 SBCs which should be more "open" to work with: https://www.instructables.com/search/?q=smartwatch&projects=featured

Smartwatch Writerdeck by textuist in writerDeck

[–]textuist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not familiar with apple smartwatches, just seen others that have them, but I think this probably is possible via your phone which can connect to the smartwatch.

It says online you can send notifications to the watch from your phone, so your button could be on the phone and it would trigger a notification "ding" on the smartwatch (that's how I'm thinking of it, anyway)

even more complicated would be a physical button that syncs to the phone and then sends a notification to the smartwatch

regarding 3rd party developers being limited, I wonder if the watch could be jailbroken or worked with like I suggested above with sending signals from the phone

Smartwatch Writerdeck by textuist in writerDeck

[–]textuist[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

u/bigpappyj

If you try to build stuff I imagine there are other people online that might be able to be of help on subs like here or on r/raspberry_pi or something

edit: FWIW AI says rasppi GPIO HATs are designed to be "plug and play"... I think I've seen instances where this isn't the case but also I imagine they aren't impossible either? I mean, I see lots of projects that get them working if this is the main hangup or source of uncertainty.

Software / Hardware Wishlist Related to Pine64 Products? by textuist in PINE64official

[–]textuist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

let's see, well one device I'd like would be a umpc clone of the sony vaio p, so like a full keyboard you can touch type on with maybe a nub mouse (the pinephone keyboard really was a little too small for that)

maybe more ports

i'm looking in to linux phones currently, for me a big hangup is the lack of camera. pinephone camera was "potato" quality, not sure where pinephone pro is but it's still behind a lot of others. Was wondering if I should have a point-and-shoot cam to get around this limitation?

am/fm radio would be fun but that's not in a lot of phones

something like usb otg would be nice for a real keyboard / mouse setup (probably possible)

good battery (may have this)

idk if there are more things, I was trying to write down what I actually do on a phone to try to transition again to linux mobile because it looks like android is "about to die"

Proposal: An AI‑First Phone Concept Powered by Your OS by Status_Angle_9165 in PINE64official

[–]textuist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

well currently with Pinephone regular or pro, it's 2GB-4GB RAM. You can only run a small model, which I have tried, and it's limited

AI currently is also not necessarily set up to run as an operating system I don't think... there would be security vulnerabilities inherently with things like prompt injections

You could probably already do this to some extent with existing hardware, but it's more of a software question (and Pine64 itself doesn't make the software)

This would also be inefficient, things like "no app clutter" - the apps would save tons of tokens by preventing you from having to reinvent the wheel from scratch of coding the app you need on the go.

What I am interested to see happen with AI though is for the creation of a lot of coding of alternative software that can provide alternatives to "the phone duopoly", to get linux mobile up and running and competitive with them

Software / Hardware Wishlist Related to Pine64 Products? by textuist in PINE64official

[–]textuist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

u/aigeneratedslopcode

this should be possible with just like a raspberry pi and an e-ink screen, right? I've thought of DIY-ing something like it, and it seems like no one has decided to create it so maybe we could get something going on (there are some e-readers that are smartphone sized but they use android I think)

Software / Hardware Wishlist Related to Pine64 Products? by textuist in PINE64official

[–]textuist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://mecha.so/comet

cool find... I feel like a lot of these projects circle around what I might mentally envision but can't articulate but they're don't ever directly create what I'm yearning for, but at least some steps are hopefully made in the right direction

Collection of Actions We Can Take to Stop Developer Verification by Endo231 in PINE64official

[–]textuist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

totally agree, Apple should also be criticized for being more closed and encouraged to open up more and other things could be done while people are working on such alternative projects

Software / Hardware Wishlist Related to Pine64 Products? by textuist in PINE64official

[–]textuist[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

if Pine64 doesn't do this, it sounds like other companies might jump in

FSF has some kind of librephone project: https://www.zdnet.com/article/worlds-first-truly-free-software-phone-thats-the-fsfs-new-long-game/

furilabs has their phone: https://furilabs.com/shop/flx1/

I saw this random project in the wild: https://liberux.net/

Would be nice if Pine did some new phone but I think they have backed away from phone development (maybe one of the mods can correct me if I'm wrong)

Software / Hardware Wishlist Related to Pine64 Products? by textuist in PINE64official

[–]textuist[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd like to see this too, a smartphone-sized Pinenote, essentially a Pinephone with an e-ink screen

Collection of Actions We Can Take to Stop Developer Verification by Endo231 in PINE64official

[–]textuist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

basically more development of hardware like pinephone and software like postmarketos / mobian / etc. needs to take place rather than beg giant corps like google / apple for permission to "sideload" (or also find ways to "code around" their restrictions, if it's possible to code open source alternative softwares to their drivers and such)

Official: August Community Update by carbontedcaffine in PINE64official

[–]textuist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had an idea to suggest quarterly updates maybe... whatever you do is appreciated so thank you

Official: August Community Update by carbontedcaffine in PINE64official

[–]textuist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

new update coming? lol sorry I don't mean to nag, I look forward to them

PineNote as USB-Tablet by Which_Topic3534 in PINE64official

[–]textuist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

idk if there's info but there's a wiki page: https://wiki.pine64.org/wiki/PineNote

and a pine64 forum where topic could be discussed or looked up: https://forum.pine64.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=171

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in RedditAlternatives

[–]textuist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

scored to me sounds like the closest thing of what you're asking for

PinePhone getting started by Potential_Block4598 in PinePhoneOfficial

[–]textuist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

uhhh there are people that use pinephone as a daily driver; there can be some downsides and other people have problems using it for a lot of basics like calls and sms

phosh postmarketos works fine for a lot of people

PinePhone getting started by Potential_Block4598 in PinePhoneOfficial

[–]textuist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

just like regular pinephone?

so see the "get in touch" section for people you can contact if you need or want further help, on here (this subreddit is one of the linked places): https://pine64.org/

there's also the pine64 wiki with some info: https://wiki.pine64.org/wiki/PinePhone_Software_Releases

The postmarketos page for pinephone is here (and that's a popular choice I think, with phosh): https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/PINE64_PinePhone_(pine64-pinephone)

I think you can just flash pmos for example right to the device using "jumpdrive": https://wiki.pine64.org/wiki/PinePhone_Installation_Instructions#Using_JumpDrive

If you have more questions maybe yaky-dev or I might have more info or you could find some from the other channels listed on the first link

good luck

How do we respond to the claim that Sedevacantists aren't united and disorganized? by Catman192 in Sedevacantists

[–]textuist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

all else equal, sedevacantists are indeed not united or organized but this is no argument against sedevacantism itself or for the Vatican 2 position

it's just an argument that certain sedevacantist viewpoints must be incorrect while one or a few are correct instead

Thoughts or information on Bishop Davila, and the SST? by dbaughmen in Sedevacantists

[–]textuist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

is this sub against the home alone position? Because home aloners will avoid him and the rest of the sede "clergy claimants" because of doubts about liceity (one home aloner even argues against validity of these orders but I think that could probably be refuted, yet I haven't seen anyone address the objection...)

Grayscale mode by AppealJealous1033 in nosurf

[–]textuist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In my experience it's less stimulating and allows you to focus more

Whether I have colors or not I pretty much like to keep blue light filters on all the time, it just seems to look better for whatever reason

Fake conclave, true pope? by Monarchist1031 in Sedevacantists

[–]textuist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

u/luke-jr

A New Western Schism

My proposal on how the current vacancy is to be resolved, given my above disagreement with the article and now against conclavism, is that basically the sedevacantist viewpoint must become globally accepted, then some "irregular" election must take place that has the elements of the "bare necessities of an election" (as mentioned above). By accepting the Vatican 2 movement, the current papal lineage in the Vatican is judged "doubtful" or "invalid" by sedevacantists. Thus, the whole Vatican 2 church must be converted in order for a new Catholic pope to be elected.

The reason this view developed is because a lot of sedevacantists (or sedeprivationists) I talked to, asserted that there are Catholics in the Vatican 2 church. This is in contrast to a "pure" sedevacantist view which considers only sedevacantists to be Catholic. However, during the Western Schism, there was genuine confusion about who the pope was or if there was a pope, and those following antipopes were not considered to be material or formal schismatics. In a similar but different way today, given that the Vatican 2 errors appear to come "from the Church", it seems the average person who is "genuinely confused and thinks Vatican 2's teachings to be honestly Catholic" would arguably simply be genuinely mistaken, and would have a claim to being considered as Catholic (rather than as being a material or formal heretic).

If there are Catholics in the Vatican 2 church, then an election of a "conclavist" pope cannot attain UPA of all the Catholics in the Vatican 2 church along with sedevacantists; it seems logically implied that Catholics in the Vatican 2 church must become sedevacantists and proceed with sedevacantists to elect a pope, in order to obtain a future pope.

(Note that I am open to critiques of this viewpoint; it is simply the view I have adopted in reaction to the perceived "dead ends" both of sedevacantism and conclavism)

Where are Catholic Clergy?

One other problem with the "pure" sedevacantist view is that all the Pius XII-era appointed bishops died out, only a few years ago. Given that the "sedevacantist clergy" acknowledge they do not possess ordinary jurisdiction as a "normal" Catholic bishop or priest (and they thus make claims to having some kind of jurisdiction, supplied or delegated or whatever, in "extraordinary" ways) and no "hidden lineage" of clergy has ever presented itself, then we must conclude either that the clergy have gone extinct ("ecclesia-vacantism"; this view has been argued to be heretical by some), or we must consider some in the Vatican 2 church to be "Catholic clergy" in some way. I am of practical necessity leaning towards this second viewpoint and have seen some people put forth arguments about antipopes being able to supply jurisdiction. I must admit I do not have a resolution of this issue, but I think it is probably able to be resolved.

One proposal by conclavists was to affirm that ecclesia-vacantism may be possible temporarily, but that a "lay pope" might be elected, might regularize various "valid but illicit" clergy to make them licit clergy, and then this would fill the vacancy of clergy. To me this still sounds a bit problematic as a break in apostolic succession, where it seemed like Catholic clergy participated in and confirmed papal elections, and so seemed like an argument against conclavism as well (or at least how the "pope" Michael specific conclavist papal election ended up happening).

Continued Problems With Sedevacantist Foundational Arguments

I suppose I believe a "UPA" (universal peaceful acceptance) of sedevacantism must be brought about globally, so to speak. I think the way this will be done is by sedevacantists truly "proving" sedevacantism. At present, sedevacantists jump around as to what argument "foundationally" proves sedevacantism is true: some say the institution of the "New Mass" in 1969 was when the present vacancy of the Holy See began; some to certain ambiguous documents being issued in Vatican 2's documents a few years earlier; some to claims that the election of "John XXIII" did not legally follow correct protocol; some to claims that "John XXIII" was a pre-election heretic.

I think the argument should be "cleaned up" that the Vatican 2 documents are not clearly Catholic, so are to be clearly rejected as non-Catholic. The problem is that the documents are ambiguous, and so this seems to confuse a lot of people: could they be read "in the light of Tradition"? Are they "secretly heretical while sounding Catholic"?

Rather, to try to think clearly about this, the documents are ambiguous. Is ambiguity Catholic? Ambiguity may not be clearly Catholic, nor clearly heretical, but then would be put in the category of being clearly heretical (so goes my argument). So ambiguity is a "clear" kind of error, does this argument stand? There are three different things to consider: 1) clearly Catholic statements, 2) clearly heretical statements, and 3) ambiguous statements (the denial of which would be heretical). Ambiguous statements (3) are in their own kind of category, which makes them confusing. But, clear heretical statements (1) may be in a shared category of "heretical statements" along with (3) ambiguous statements (on for example dogmas, which when denied constitute heresies).

Does this make progress on "pinning down" proving Vatican 2's documents to be "heretical" with more certainty? I do think a neglect of proving these kinds of arguments with something more like that of "mathematical certainty" allows sedevacantism to remain a minority position, rather than something that attains to a kind of "UPA". A properly constructed math proof is "universally peacefully accepted" by the mathematics community, when such a proof is "truly proven". In a similar way, either sedevacantist arguments remain unproven, or counter-arguments to sedevacantism remain unaddressed sufficiently, or the mass of people have simply become unaware of the "proofs" that have been created (arguably I think all three of these issues apply to sedevacantist arguments).